Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Think a pack of Skittles looks like a gun? If you're holding a gun, probably   (newsinfo.nd.edu ) divider line
    More: Interesting, University of Notre Dame, Journal of Experimental Psychology  
•       •       •

22838 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2012 at 4:17 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1322 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-22 07:17:28 PM  

The Great EZE: You don't need anything more to stir up outrage than what actually happened.


The 911 call in which you can hear Trayvon calling for help is incredibly disturbing.

Trayvon Martin: HELP! HELP! HELP! HELP! HE-

*BLAM!*
 
2012-03-22 07:17:30 PM  

9beers: Mrtraveler01: 9beers: As the mob has taught me, you can do no wrong if you're rolling with Skittles.

That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.

I know, so why does the mob keep claiming it?

By the way, I'm at the bar, it's a short walk. Sam Adams and Skittles, mmmmm!


I still don't see your point. You're scruntinize everything that came from the Martin side of the case but you believe everything the Zimmerman side says?
 
2012-03-22 07:18:16 PM  

yert: That is a russian nascent (not sure of spelling) it is the only revolver that can use a silencer.


<dude>
That's interesting, man. That's farkin' interesting.
</dude>
 
2012-03-22 07:22:00 PM  

jso2897: None of this is relevant. What matters is who is responsible for initiating the confrontation. When you assault someone, you lose your right to "self defense" as a legal concept. You cannot legally "defend" yourself from someone you have assaulted. If you could, the robber who guns down the store clerk who pulls a gun would only go to jail for robbery.


I never said otherwise, nor would I. The only person in this case who could claim self-defense was Treyvon. He's the only to whom any "Stand Your Ground" law would actually apply.
 
2012-03-22 07:22:49 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The Great EZE: You don't need anything more to stir up outrage than what actually happened.

The 911 call in which you can hear Trayvon calling for help is incredibly disturbing.

Trayvon Martin: HELP! HELP! HELP! HELP! HE-

*BLAM!*


Well, that's fairly normal. I'm an old bar fighter, and whenever i have somebody on their back, and I'm beating the crap out of them so bad that they are in reasonable fear for their life, I always shout "HELP! HELP ME! HELP!" in a terrified voice.
Perfectly normal.
 
2012-03-22 07:23:40 PM  

The Great EZE: umad: It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

I don't buy that for a second. Everything we need to know to discredit Zimmerman's self-defense claim can be found in his 911 call and the lack of weapons on Martin. You don't need anything more to stir up outrage than what actually happened. Again, if you just tell somebody the bare bones of the story with no pictures there's going to be outrage and rightfully so.


Jesus H. Christ. You don't buy it but then immediately post exactly what I was saying. The facts of the case are enough. There is no need to embellish things.

If your opinion of Martin is going to change because you saw a picture of him at 17 then chances are you're a bad guy and completely out of touch with this story.

I don't think my opinion would change. I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING MISLED. HOW IS THAT SO FARKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Damn, you people are retarded. I am against the use of emotional manipulation, even when I otherwise agree with what they are saying.
 
2012-03-22 07:24:11 PM  

pxsteel: 17 year old's are only children to their parents


What a moronic statement. Why, I don't believe I've seen someone just pull a personal opinion out of their ass and present it to the world as a fact since...Um, I guess since the last time I was here, a couple of hours ago. I'll bet this is the way you run your whole life, isn't it?

The most hilarious trait of the stupid is that they don't realize they are.

Incidentally, my wife considers many of her university students to still be "children", because that's how they act. B O O M ! Thanks to your ignorant phrasing, all it takes is a single counter-example to make you wrong. But you weren't smart enough to notice that, were you?

tl;dr, you're wrong and ignorant. I'm right but have poor social skills so am really just pissing you off.

//Okay now it's your turn to call me a "libtard" and think you got even.
//An insult about autism would hit closer to home, if you think you can come up with one.
 
2012-03-22 07:24:28 PM  
Sock Ruh Tease,[WTF revolver image]
What is the holey thing on the end of the cylinder of this Glock?


After years of the media not knowing the difference between a full and semi-auto, someone out there managed to put a weird gun image out there that even confused people that know something about guns.

/Bravo you academic information troll.
 
2012-03-22 07:24:39 PM  

DrExplosion: jso2897: None of this is relevant. What matters is who is responsible for initiating the confrontation. When you assault someone, you lose your right to "self defense" as a legal concept. You cannot legally "defend" yourself from someone you have assaulted. If you could, the robber who guns down the store clerk who pulls a gun would only go to jail for robbery.

I never said otherwise, nor would I. The only person in this case who could claim self-defense was Treyvon. He's the only to whom any "Stand Your Ground" law would actually apply.


I didn't mean to be snotty - I just don't see how who could kick whose ass matters - all that matters is who started the trouble.
 
2012-03-22 07:25:03 PM  

DrExplosion: I guess that's really what I'm getting at. I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am arguing that it's foolish to assume that the other guy can't beat you just because he's younger, smaller, etc. I'm sure you've run into a few guys who've surprised you. Hell, I've been that guy who surprises people.

So yeah, you should probably be placing your bets on the 30-year-old, but the 30-year-old should fight as if he thinks the 17-year-old is a goddamn ninja. A wise man won't risk an ass-beating just because he should be able to take his opponent.


Fair enough. I'm just arguing against the bias the other way -- that a 17-year-old is implicitly a threatening punk. A 17-year-old has to be a freaky 17 year old or actually armed with something more than Skittles in order for him to be threatening to an average 28 year old.
 
2012-03-22 07:27:02 PM  

Beowoolfie: pxsteel: 17 year old's are only children to their parents

What a moronic statement. Why, I don't believe I've seen someone just pull a personal opinion out of their ass and present it to the world as a fact since...Um, I guess since the last time I was here, a couple of hours ago. I'll bet this is the way you run your whole life, isn't it?

The most hilarious trait of the stupid is that they don't realize they are.

Incidentally, my wife considers many of her university students to still be "children", because that's how they act. B O O M ! Thanks to your ignorant phrasing, all it takes is a single counter-example to make you wrong. But you weren't smart enough to notice that, were you?

tl;dr, you're wrong and ignorant. I'm right but have poor social skills so am really just pissing you off.

//Okay now it's your turn to call me a "libtard" and think you got even.
//An insult about autism would hit closer to home, if you think you can come up with one.


That's probably not a road you want to travel down, especially on Fark.
 
2012-03-22 07:28:11 PM  

umad: The Great EZE: umad: It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

I don't buy that for a second. Everything we need to know to discredit Zimmerman's self-defense claim can be found in his 911 call and the lack of weapons on Martin. You don't need anything more to stir up outrage than what actually happened. Again, if you just tell somebody the bare bones of the story with no pictures there's going to be outrage and rightfully so.

Jesus H. Christ. You don't buy it but then immediately post exactly what I was saying. The facts of the case are enough. There is no need to embellish things.

If your opinion of Martin is going to change because you saw a picture of him at 17 then chances are you're a bad guy and completely out of touch with this story.

I don't think my opinion would change. I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING MISLED. HOW IS THAT SO FARKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Damn, you people are retarded. I am against the use of emotional manipulation, even when I otherwise agree with what they are saying.


I think you're trying to look too much into this. The photo they published didn't change my opinion on what happened. Which was a wannabe gung-ho cop shot and killed a 17 year old for no legitimate reason.

I don't think people's emotions changed just based on the photo they published.
 
2012-03-22 07:29:09 PM  

dahmers love zombie: The preceding situations do not in fact involve chasing someone down the street under ANY circumstances. If you're chasing them, by definition the threat is NOT coming towards you, you farking idiot.


I think back to my Civics teacher, he was good, this was preProp13 California. As a citizen you can chase after a criminal and arrest them and use necessary force to do so. But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.
 
2012-03-22 07:30:02 PM  

jso2897: DrExplosion: jso2897: None of this is relevant. What matters is who is responsible for initiating the confrontation. When you assault someone, you lose your right to "self defense" as a legal concept. You cannot legally "defend" yourself from someone you have assaulted. If you could, the robber who guns down the store clerk who pulls a gun would only go to jail for robbery.

I never said otherwise, nor would I. The only person in this case who could claim self-defense was Treyvon. He's the only to whom any "Stand Your Ground" law would actually apply.

I didn't mean to be snotty - I just don't see how who could kick whose ass matters - all that matters is who started the trouble.


And sadly no one except for the deceased kid and the shooter knows this unless something else presents itself.
 
2012-03-22 07:30:12 PM  

9beers: solokumba: The Chief of Police is stepping down!!!!!

until all this blows over. then he'll take his job back.

He shouldn't have even stepped down. He's been doing his job properly since the night of the shooting.


By taking no remedial or disciplinary action in a totally botched investigation?
That sort of management gets you fired toots f**kin' sweet in the private sector, so why excuse it in the public?
 
2012-03-22 07:30:53 PM  

gibbon1: But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.


And that therein lies Zimmerman's problem. It's not a crime to look at a bunch of houses and walk down the street in the rain.

All Zimmerman has is his preconceived notions and that won't hold up in a court of law.
 
2012-03-22 07:31:08 PM  

umad: The Great EZE: umad: It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

I don't buy that for a second. Everything we need to know to discredit Zimmerman's self-defense claim can be found in his 911 call and the lack of weapons on Martin. You don't need anything more to stir up outrage than what actually happened. Again, if you just tell somebody the bare bones of the story with no pictures there's going to be outrage and rightfully so.

Jesus H. Christ. You don't buy it but then immediately post exactly what I was saying. The facts of the case are enough. There is no need to embellish things.

If your opinion of Martin is going to change because you saw a picture of him at 17 then chances are you're a bad guy and completely out of touch with this story.

I don't think my opinion would change. I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING MISLED. HOW IS THAT SO FARKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Damn, you people are retarded. I am against the use of emotional manipulation, even when I otherwise agree with what they are saying.


Well, the pictures didn't make him look any less black...
 
2012-03-22 07:31:13 PM  

9beers: solokumba: The Chief of Police is stepping down!!!!!

until all this blows over. then he'll take his job back.

He shouldn't have even stepped down. He's been doing his job properly since the night of the shooting.


www.jabootu.com
 
2012-03-22 07:32:20 PM  

umad: I'm not near 40, yet 17 year old me could kick my ass in a heartbeat, even if I would outweigh him by 30 pounds. I would bet that most other men would agree.


This is the attitude that I'm arguing against. I think you guys might have self-esteem issues that might make you afraid of teens, or something, but I would say you're just not aware of what you're capable of. Unless you have a disability, I suggest you try a boxing class -- it is great stress relief and I think you will surprise yourself.

Zimmerman, who was in the prime of his life, not unfit, and had like a 50% weight advantage, was somehow scared by this kid. I know there was likely a race factor too, but honestly his perception was out of whack. Even without a gun, Zimmerman could have put the hurt on that kid.

There are very few sports (I don't know any but leaving an open the chance that I don't in fact know it all) where a 17 year old generally beats a 28 year old in strength, endurance, or ability to take pain.
 
2012-03-22 07:33:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gibbon1: But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.

And that therein lies Zimmerman's problem. It's not a crime to look at a bunch of houses and walk down the street in the rain.

All Zimmerman has is his preconceived notions and that won't hold up in a court of law.


Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.
 
2012-03-22 07:35:31 PM  

ghare: So does a pillow, a horse, a boat, and a bowling ball.


What's a black guy doing carrying a horse around? That right there is suspicious.....
 
2012-03-22 07:36:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: umad: The Great EZE: umad: The Great EZE: "Won't somebody PLEASE tell me something that makes Treyvon look like the aggressive gangster-rapping police-record-having thug that I'm more comfortable imagining!?" -People biatching about the photos being published of the victim.

"I love being blatantly manipulated by the media. Stretching the truth is ok as long as it advances my agenda." - People that don't find it strange that every published photo of the victim is 5 years old.

vpb:
It is more people keeping an open mind I think. I don't know either one of them and I wasn't there.

Here's the thing, though: Martin could've been the most disruptive hellraiser the state of Florida has ever seen. There could be hours of footage of him knocking over liquor stores, breaking into cars, and taking purses from old ladies. On that day he wasn't doing anything wrong. The media could use one of those silhouette "photo unavailable" images or air a flip book of every picture he's ever taken from birth to death and he still wouldn't be any less innocent in this case. If you have an axe to grind with the media grind it when it's actually relevant to the story.

It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

Zimmerman's self-defense claim is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the kid ran away, and he chased him, sees to that.


His story is that he gave up chase and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him. I don't believe him one darned bit, and I hope the evidence bears some charges, but it may be difficult to either prove or disprove his version of events, given the lack of witnesses.... I'm hopeful that one of the 911 callers saw something conclusive.
 
2012-03-22 07:36:39 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: gibbon1: But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.

And that therein lies Zimmerman's problem. It's not a crime to look at a bunch of houses and walk down the street in the rain.

All Zimmerman has is his preconceived notions and that won't hold up in a court of law.

Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.


Even the eyewitness (the one from the Fox 35 article) didn't witness the shot. That's the other problem in this case.

It'll probably turn out like Casey Anthony where she probably did it but since they couldn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", she got to walk away scott-free.

The same will happen here. Since they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he instigated it, he'll walk away scott-free as well.
 
2012-03-22 07:37:04 PM  

redmid17: The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.


Forensics. If they can reasonably approximate the true angle of the shot, it could blow his story out of the water.
 
2012-03-22 07:37:31 PM  

jabelar: This is the attitude that I'm arguing against. I think you guys might have self-esteem issues that might make you afraid of teens, or something, but I would say you're just not aware of what you're capable of. Unless you have a disability, I suggest you try a boxing class -- it is great stress relief and I think you will surprise yourself.


I don't have that attitude because of any self-esteem issues. I have it because I was ripped when I was 17 and could kick my current-day ass.
 
2012-03-22 07:37:34 PM  

soupbone: jso2897: DrExplosion: jso2897: None of this is relevant. What matters is who is responsible for initiating the confrontation. When you assault someone, you lose your right to "self defense" as a legal concept. You cannot legally "defend" yourself from someone you have assaulted. If you could, the robber who guns down the store clerk who pulls a gun would only go to jail for robbery.

I never said otherwise, nor would I. The only person in this case who could claim self-defense was Treyvon. He's the only to whom any "Stand Your Ground" law would actually apply.

I didn't mean to be snotty - I just don't see how who could kick whose ass matters - all that matters is who started the trouble.

And sadly no one except for the deceased kid and the shooter knows this unless something else presents itself.


A jury may or may not conclude that - that's why we have them. The eyewitness testimony is, at this point, fragmented, contradictory, and incomplete (no thanks to the Keystone Koppers) - but there exists one rather strong piece of circumstantial evidence - Zimmerman was pursuing Martin - that is not in dispute. He was not in a position to lawfully detain him. That is not in dispute.
ANY attempt on his part to do so would have been an assault.
No, it isn't live video - but it doesn't look good.
And people get convicted on circumstantial evidence every day.
 
2012-03-22 07:38:06 PM  

firefly212: HeartBurnKid: umad: The Great EZE: umad: The Great EZE: "Won't somebody PLEASE tell me something that makes Treyvon look like the aggressive gangster-rapping police-record-having thug that I'm more comfortable imagining!?" -People biatching about the photos being published of the victim.

"I love being blatantly manipulated by the media. Stretching the truth is ok as long as it advances my agenda." - People that don't find it strange that every published photo of the victim is 5 years old.

vpb:
It is more people keeping an open mind I think. I don't know either one of them and I wasn't there.

Here's the thing, though: Martin could've been the most disruptive hellraiser the state of Florida has ever seen. There could be hours of footage of him knocking over liquor stores, breaking into cars, and taking purses from old ladies. On that day he wasn't doing anything wrong. The media could use one of those silhouette "photo unavailable" images or air a flip book of every picture he's ever taken from birth to death and he still wouldn't be any less innocent in this case. If you have an axe to grind with the media grind it when it's actually relevant to the story.

It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

Zimmerman's self-defense claim is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the kid ran away, and he chased him, sees to that.

His story is that he gave up chase and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him. I don't believe him one darned bit, and I hope the evidence bears some charges, but it may be difficult to either prove or disprove his version of events, given the lack of witnesses.... I'm hopeful that one of the 911 callers saw something conclusive.


I don't buy it either.

Why would a kid who got scared of a guy following him charge back at the guy after he gave up chasing him as he was going back to his car?
 
2012-03-22 07:38:51 PM  

jso2897: I didn't mean to be snotty - I just don't see how who could kick whose ass matters - all that matters is who started the trouble.


I guess it really isn't relevant. What can I say? It's Thursday and I'm bored. What better way to waste time than arguing over minutiae on Fark?
 
2012-03-22 07:39:42 PM  

redmid17: Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.


This kind of reminds me of some other idiot's excuse to do what he did.
wanderingtracks.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-03-22 07:39:46 PM  

jabelar: umad: I'm not near 40, yet 17 year old me could kick my ass in a heartbeat, even if I would outweigh him by 30 pounds. I would bet that most other men would agree.

This is the attitude that I'm arguing against. I think you guys might have self-esteem issues that might make you afraid of teens, or something, but I would say you're just not aware of what you're capable of. Unless you have a disability, I suggest you try a boxing class -- it is great stress relief and I think you will surprise yourself.

Zimmerman, who was in the prime of his life, not unfit, and had like a 50% weight advantage, was somehow scared by this kid. I know there was likely a race factor too, but honestly his perception was out of whack. Even without a gun, Zimmerman could have put the hurt on that kid.

There are very few sports (I don't know any but leaving an open the chance that I don't in fact know it all) where a 17 year old generally beats a 28 year old in strength, endurance, or ability to take pain.


I wouldn't call his weight an advantage... he was a fatty. Let's not pretend all 28 year olds are equal... he's not practicing for the combine, Zimmerman looks more like the kind of guy who plays too much WoW and has at least 8 mountain dews every morning. (It isn't particularly relevant to the justifiability of the shooting, or lack thereof).
 
2012-03-22 07:40:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The same will happen here. Since they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he instigated it, he'll walk away scott-free as well.


The difference in this case is, like OJ, there is an interested party that could still seek civil damages against him, and civil trials generally have lower burdens of proof. It's not as good as putting him in jail, but it's some form of recourse.
 
2012-03-22 07:40:32 PM  

umad: You gonna post a citation for that load of shiat?


What are you talking about?. Look at ages of any champion power-lifter, boxer, mma, marathon runner, etc. In some of those like power-lifting, most champions are mid to even late 30s.

Anyway, what may be confusing you is that there is a big burst of development between 17 and 24. Certainly there are young guys (early 20s) that are dangerous, but very few 17 year olds that are dangerous in a physical sense.
 
2012-03-22 07:42:14 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: gibbon1: But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.

And that therein lies Zimmerman's problem. It's not a crime to look at a bunch of houses and walk down the street in the rain.

All Zimmerman has is his preconceived notions and that won't hold up in a court of law.

Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.


The grand jury will determine whether it goes to trial - but they don't need to meet the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt". If ( probably, when) it goes to trial, the prosecution will attempt to prove those things. The defense will argue otherwise - and the jury will decide what has been proven, and by whom.
 
2012-03-22 07:42:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: firefly212: HeartBurnKid: umad: The Great EZE: umad: The Great EZE: "Won't somebody PLEASE tell me something that makes Treyvon look like the aggressive gangster-rapping police-record-having thug that I'm more comfortable imagining!?" -People biatching about the photos being published of the victim.

"I love being blatantly manipulated by the media. Stretching the truth is ok as long as it advances my agenda." - People that don't find it strange that every published photo of the victim is 5 years old.

vpb:
It is more people keeping an open mind I think. I don't know either one of them and I wasn't there.

Here's the thing, though: Martin could've been the most disruptive hellraiser the state of Florida has ever seen. There could be hours of footage of him knocking over liquor stores, breaking into cars, and taking purses from old ladies. On that day he wasn't doing anything wrong. The media could use one of those silhouette "photo unavailable" images or air a flip book of every picture he's ever taken from birth to death and he still wouldn't be any less innocent in this case. If you have an axe to grind with the media grind it when it's actually relevant to the story.

It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

Zimmerman's self-defense claim is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the kid ran away, and he chased him, sees to that.

His story is that he gave up chase and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him. I don't believe him one darned bit, and I hope the evidence bears some charges, but it may be difficult to either prove or disprove his version of events, given the lack of witnesses.... I'm hopeful that one of the 911 callers saw something conclusive.

I don't buy it either.

Why would a kid who got scared of a guy following h ...


I dunno. I can't say that I'd put it outside the realm of possibility that Zimmerman would have yelled something racist, accusatory, or otherwise inflammatory at the kid... he seems like plenty enough of a dick that people might not have the self control they'd like to and just give the guy the drubbing his attitude warrants. Like I said, I don't believe him... but I wouldn't call it outside of the realm of possibility that he pissed the kid off enough to get the kid to take a swing.
 
2012-03-22 07:43:12 PM  

firefly212: I wouldn't call his weight an advantage... he was a fatty. Let's not pretend all 28 year olds are equal... he's not practicing for the combine, Zimmerman looks more like the kind of guy who plays too much WoW and has at least 8 mountain dews every morning. (It isn't particularly relevant to the justifiability of the shooting, or lack thereof).


Interestingly enough, these kinds of arguments are the reason that "Stand your ground" was passed.

When there's a "duty to retreat", the jury has to decide if they think you REALLY had to shoot the guy, or there was some CONCEIVABLE way you could have escaped, and if they think there was, blam, manslaughter.

The idea behind stand your ground was "Are you threatened?" "Yes" "You may protect yourself."

Now we apparently have to wrangle out what the hell it means to be threatened.

I prefer the Men In Black school of self defense. "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."
 
2012-03-22 07:45:06 PM  

redmid17: Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin?


Ummm...any prosecutor worth a fark?

Lets see...no permit to carry, violent priors, initiated the encounter, older, bigger, ARMED...


The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.

Not an "eyewitness", a "suspect". You can't be a "witness" to a crime you are accused of committing. And gee, his account of what happened just might be biased, don't you think? That is why his ass needs to be before a jury to decide how believable his story is, and I believe that he is going to rightfully do time, as well as have the Stand Your Ground law changed, if not repealed.

So, thank this IDIOT you are defending for that.
 
2012-03-22 07:46:24 PM  
Of course. Single-tooled hammer type people see nails everywhere.
 
2012-03-22 07:47:00 PM  

firefly212: Mrtraveler01: firefly212: HeartBurnKid: umad: The Great EZE: umad: The Great EZE: "Won't somebody PLEASE tell me something that makes Treyvon look like the aggressive gangster-rapping police-record-having thug that I'm more comfortable imagining!?" -People biatching about the photos being published of the victim.

"I love being blatantly manipulated by the media. Stretching the truth is ok as long as it advances my agenda." - People that don't find it strange that every published photo of the victim is 5 years old.

vpb:
It is more people keeping an open mind I think. I don't know either one of them and I wasn't there.

Here's the thing, though: Martin could've been the most disruptive hellraiser the state of Florida has ever seen. There could be hours of footage of him knocking over liquor stores, breaking into cars, and taking purses from old ladies. On that day he wasn't doing anything wrong. The media could use one of those silhouette "photo unavailable" images or air a flip book of every picture he's ever taken from birth to death and he still wouldn't be any less innocent in this case. If you have an axe to grind with the media grind it when it's actually relevant to the story.

It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

Zimmerman's self-defense claim is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the kid ran away, and he chased him, sees to that.

His story is that he gave up chase and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him. I don't believe him one darned bit, and I hope the evidence bears some charges, but it may be difficult to either prove or disprove his version of events, given the lack of witnesses.... I'm hopeful that one of the 911 callers saw something conclusive.

I don't buy it either.

Why would a kid who got scared of a g ...


I dunno, maybe because I'm a scrawny 24 year old with little to no muscle, but if there was someone trying to chase me, I'd run the fark away from him and not stop until I can't see him anymore.

I certainly would not go back and fight him.
 
2012-03-22 07:47:00 PM  
I've carried a gun everywhere for eight years now. Somehow the magical indoctrination aura doesn't seem to have affected me, because I've been thrown out of stores and restaurants repeatedly and somehow managed to never shoot anybody, even though I probably had every right to on several occasions.
 
2012-03-22 07:47:12 PM  

jabelar: umad: You gonna post a citation for that load of shiat?

What are you talking about?. Look at ages of any champion power-lifter, boxer, mma, marathon runner, etc. In some of those like power-lifting, most champions are mid to even late 30s.

Anyway, what may be confusing you is that there is a big burst of development between 17 and 24. Certainly there are young guys (early 20s) that are dangerous, but very few 17 year olds that are dangerous in a physical sense.


Yet in 2010 alone 1100 murders were committed by 17 year olds (2010, FBI.gov, sorry there was nothing more recent). Trayvon was a good kid by all accounts, but I think we do a disservice to everyone when we try to make stereotypes (especially by age) to pretend that there aren't plenty of fit 17 year olds, fat 17 year olds, and same categories in pretty much any age group.
 
2012-03-22 07:47:29 PM  

FarkinHostile: .no permit to carry,


Not required if you are in your vehicle in Florida.

Replace that with "Carrying despite the rules of the neighborhood watch not allowing it."
 
2012-03-22 07:48:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: firefly212: HeartBurnKid: umad: The Great EZE: umad: The Great EZE: "Won't somebody PLEASE tell me something that makes Treyvon look like the aggressive gangster-rapping police-record-having thug that I'm more comfortable imagining!?" -People biatching about the photos being published of the victim.

"I love being blatantly manipulated by the media. Stretching the truth is ok as long as it advances my agenda." - People that don't find it strange that every published photo of the victim is 5 years old.

vpb:
It is more people keeping an open mind I think. I don't know either one of them and I wasn't there.

Here's the thing, though: Martin could've been the most disruptive hellraiser the state of Florida has ever seen. There could be hours of footage of him knocking over liquor stores, breaking into cars, and taking purses from old ladies. On that day he wasn't doing anything wrong. The media could use one of those silhouette "photo unavailable" images or air a flip book of every picture he's ever taken from birth to death and he still wouldn't be any less innocent in this case. If you have an axe to grind with the media grind it when it's actually relevant to the story.

It is relevant to the story. They are only showing pictures of him as a kid to make Zimmerman's self-defense claim seem ridiculous and to stir up outrage. If your argument is righteous, you don't need to lie to garner support. The ends don't justify the means.

Zimmerman's self-defense claim is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the kid ran away, and he chased him, sees to that.

His story is that he gave up chase and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him. I don't believe him one darned bit, and I hope the evidence bears some charges, but it may be difficult to either prove or disprove his version of events, given the lack of witnesses.... I'm hopeful that one of the 911 callers saw something conclusive.

I don't buy it either.

Why would a kid who got scared of a guy following h ...


It'll be interesting to see if the autopsy reveals any bruising to Trayvon's face, especially any defensive bruising on his forearms, or offensive bruising on his knuckles from punching.
 
2012-03-22 07:48:15 PM  

The_Sponge: sprawl15: Modified SKS rifles could be grandfathered in. The cutoff date was in the early 90's to register it as a grandfathered weapon. The state offered multiple amnesty periods, including one after the 2000 ruling. I just explained that to you. None of this was a surprise to any well informed gun owner, and they got their ducks in a row in 1989.


Should those rifles be banned?

Why do I get the feeling that you don't care that California trampled on people's Second Amendment rights? So what if they had registration periods? They should have never passed the ban in the first place.

We're splitting hairs here, but what it all comes down to is that people were forced to turn in their firearms.


Nobody was forced to do anything. Not a single person was denied the ability to grandfather in their SKS rifle.

You seem to take being corrected personally. I'm just attempting to keep firearm discussion informed; saying California passed a law In 2000 forcing all SKS owners to turn in their guns is factually wrong. Accept it and move on.
 
2012-03-22 07:48:49 PM  

FarkinHostile: Not an "eyewitness", a "suspect". You can't be a "witness" to a crime you are accused of committing. And gee, his account of what happened just might be biased, don't you think? That is why his ass needs to be before a jury to decide how believable his story is, and I believe that he is going to rightfully do time, as well as have the Stand Your Ground law changed, if not repealed.

So, thank this IDIOT you are defending for that.


I think he's talking about the guy who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

What he fails to point out is this same guy ran back into his house when the gunshot was fired so even he can't prove who was on who the moments prior to the gun shot.
 
2012-03-22 07:49:30 PM  

umad: jabelar: This is the attitude that I'm arguing against. I think you guys might have self-esteem issues that might make you afraid of teens, or something, but I would say you're just not aware of what you're capable of. Unless you have a disability, I suggest you try a boxing class -- it is great stress relief and I think you will surprise yourself.

I don't have that attitude because of any self-esteem issues. I have it because I was ripped when I was 17 and could kick my current-day ass.


It is possible to go downhill that much, but again I think you have a perceptual bias. Most guys at 17 are leaner, maybe feel more potent and energetic, but in terms of actual strength, that would be rare to lose so much. If you actually went back in time you'd probably see that you were scrawny compared to now. If you were a total muscle head before, and totally let yourself go, sure. But I still bet if you went to the gym for even three weeks you would be able to bench more than you did at 17. And if you continued to train constantly you'd surely be in better shape now. And if you were a slob when young you'd be a stronger slob now (or possible reformed like a lotta guys that get going in their 30s). The only case of getting worse other than injury would be being highly athletic youth that let yourself go. That is not the average or even common scenario. One other tip -- the guy that's "ripped" isn't necessarily the strongest or best fighter.
 
2012-03-22 07:49:32 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: FarkinHostile: .no permit to carry,

Not required if you are in your vehicle in Florida.

Replace that with "Carrying despite the rules of the neighborhood watch not allowing it."


He was obviously driving when he was assaulted by and forced to shoot the kid from his car.
 
2012-03-22 07:49:32 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Not required if you are in your vehicle in Florida.


He wasn't in his vehicle. He exited the vehicle to chase the kid.

Do I really have to point that out? It's like claiming Castle Doctrine.
 
2012-03-22 07:51:01 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: When you're holding a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.


Sure,
but I'd rather hold a hammer than a nail
yes I would
if I only could I surely would

I'd rather shoot a black kid in the head
till he's dead
then go to be-e-ed

Away I'd like to get awayyy
with homicide
At least I tried
A fat man beat up on the ground
He gives the kid
another round
another round
 
2012-03-22 07:51:14 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: jabelar: Remember - he was a hooded, black 17 year old. He might as well have been an Orc.

/great, now I wanna go home and play Skyrim


I used to play Skyrim, but then I took a Skittle to the knee.
 
2012-03-22 07:52:03 PM  

solokumba: redmid17: Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.

This kind of reminds me of some other idiot's excuse to do what he did.
[wanderingtracks.files.wordpress.com image 438x604]


I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm 99% certain that Zimmerman straight killed the kid. I doubt it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

jso2897: redmid17: Mrtraveler01: gibbon1: But you'd better be farking sure they actually did something and can prove it or you're looking at a world of hurt.

And that therein lies Zimmerman's problem. It's not a crime to look at a bunch of houses and walk down the street in the rain.

All Zimmerman has is his preconceived notions and that won't hold up in a court of law.

Who's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin? The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.

The grand jury will determine whether it goes to trial - but they don't need to meet the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt". If ( probably, when) it goes to trial, the prosecution will attempt to prove those things. The defense will argue otherwise - and the jury will decide what has been proven, and by whom.


Thanks for the Civics 101 lesson there skippy. I wasn't saying I have a lack of the basic functioning of the judicial system. I was saying that the only person who could actually dispute Zimmerman's whole version of the story is dead. There isn't much the prosecution can do to disprove Zimmerman's statement. Even the State Attorney said it was going to be exceedingly hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't shoot in self-defense.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: redmid17: The only eyewitness is claiming self-defense and the closest we get is testimony from the GF before the shooting and people who never witnessed the shot.

Forensics. If they can reasonably approximate the true angle of the shot, it could blow his story out of the water.


I'm a bit at a loss to see what they could ascertain from the angle of the shot. Even if it's an a downward angle (ie Zimmerman standing over him), Zimmerman can just say he managed to throw Martin off of him and pull the gun, but Martin lunged back at him, Remember the cops noted Zimmerman had wet spots on his back (ie been lying on it) and blood on several parts of his head as well as a witness saying Martin was "beating him."

This is just going to be a really difficult case to prove. A grand jury indictment is likely, but I don't know a jury trial ends with a guilty charge.
 
Displayed 50 of 1322 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report